In the field of bicycle riding, every comfort and control advantage is of great importance to the cyclist. The activity of riding leads to fatigue and stresses on various parts of the body, including the hands and arms. By affecting the position and use of the hands and arms, the handlebar of the bicycle is directly involved in the generation of fatigue in these parts of the body. The rider will wish to minimize fatigue and stresses in order to improve comfort, endurance, and ability to safely control the bicycle.
In bicycle riding, the rider must control the position and direction of the bicycle, gear selection, and speed of descent. The handlebar is involved in all these facets of riding. The handlebar area serves as a control center having shift levers and brake levers as well as handgrip positions for maintaining balance, supporting body weight, and steering the bicycle. Therefore, control is affected by both the functionality of the handlebar and the fatigue of the rider, and control is necessary for both performance and safety.
Stresses that lead to fatigue and the need for control are increased by riding on minimally prepared, rough, and steeply sloped roads and trails. These conditions increase the bumpiness of the ride, the need to maneuver around and over obstacles, and the need to quickly shift gears. These conditions also increase the need to reduce speed by applying brakes quickly and firmly, and in the case of a long descent, for a long period of time. As a result of absorbing the shock of traveling over bumps, the increased shifting and maneuvering, and the increased use of the brakes, the rider's hands and arms are subjected to greater stress. Hands and arms must be used more often and more effectively to control the bicycle.
The needs for comfort and control are also readily made apparent on rides of long duration and as well as rides by recreational, occasional cyclists. Rides of long duration for any type of rider bring fatigue in the hands and arms. Occasional cyclists are not as physically conditioned as competitive riders, which increases their susceptibility to stresses and fatigue. For any type of rider, fatigue reduces the rider's level of performance in terms of endurance, speed and control. In riding on either roads or minimally prepared trails, a rider will attempt to reduce fatigue and conserve energy for travelling farther or faster, which will help the rider achieve a competitive advantage or simply accomplish personal riding goals. Similarly, both types of riders will avoid fatigue to avoid losing quickness, accuracy, and safety in executing maneuvers for control. Thus, both competitive cyclists and recreational riders benefit from a reduction in fatigue.
Consequently, handlebars that reduce fatigue and increase control will provide an advantage under many situations encountered in bicycle riding. The need for handlebars that are more effective at reducing fatigue and increasing control has motivated the present invention.
Several handlebar designs known in the prior art orient the rider in an aerodynamic position. However, these handlebars have limited ability to reduce hand and arm fatigue and to enhance control. As noted above, these problems are present in riding on all surfaces, yet they are particularly noticeable on minimally prepared trails and roads. In road riding and racing, on the other hand, the level of concern is often lower for fatigue of hands and arms or for control, and the concern is often higher for aerodynamic advantage. Another common type of prior art handlebar, the generally straight bar currently found on mountain bikes, has limitations concerning the hand positions available and the options for control lever arrangement. In both cases, these limitations relate to the hand positions provided and the effect these have on the rider's comfort and control.
One of these types of prior art handlebars, primarily found on bicycles for riding on roads and for racing, orients the rider in an aerodynamic body position. Several designs in this category have a primary limitation that the handlebar causes the bicyclist to remain in the forward leaning position. In some cases, these handlebars allow an alternative handgrip that raises the body. This alternative hand position provides limited access to control levers and limited leverage on the handlebars for turning control.
In many situations, an aerodynamic position and the alternative hand positions available with these handlebars are not appropriate. When riding on steeply sloped terrain, the rider will desire to shift the body position to transfer the appropriate amount of weight to each of the two wheels. Ascending is facilitated by shifting the body position and weight forward relative to the position when riding on a near level surface, and descending is facilitated by shifting weight rearward. Handlebars allowing good control of the bicycle by providing forward and rearward handgrip positions would assist the rider in these situations. Furthermore, in ascending and near flat travel, proper use of muscle groups is assisted by handlebars that allow the rider to lean forward to the appropriate degree.
Riding on rough trails places several additional requirements on the rider. It requires that the rider absorb the larger jolts, vibrations, and change in attitude of the bicycle as it travels over bumps, it requires that the rider have rapid access to control levers from various handgrip positions, and it requires that the rider retain control by maintaining a firm grip on the handlebars. Leverage is needed to resist twisting forces placed on the front wheel and handlebars by the weight of the bicycle pressing on uneven terrain. Leverage facilitates guiding the bicycle by allowing the rider to take sharp or carefully controlled turns.
Handlebars designed to create an aerodynamic forward leaning position have limited value in these situations. The forward lean is only appropriate in a portion of the slope and surface conditions. For any of the available hand positions, the ability to absorb vibration, to have access to control levers from other positions, and to have leverage for control are very limited.
Another type of prior art handlebar, currently found primarily on mountain bikes, is characterized by a generally straight cross bar. This handlebar provides higher level of leverage and ability to absorb jolts. A limitation of these handlebars is that they provide limited alternatives to the rider shifting weight to ascend or descend. Handlebar extensions, directed forward from the ends of the generally straight cross bar, are used to provide a handgripping position that is useful for the bicyclist when ascending. When using these extensions, the rider has no access to control levers. Furthermore, the arrangement does not provide a handgripping position that assists descent.
Both of the general types of prior art handlebars mentioned above have another particular problem encountered by competitive and recreational cyclists alike, especially in long distance riding. Fatigue can build up in a cyclist's shoulders, forearms, wrists, and hands due to stresses acting over a period of time on the aforementioned body parts. As noted above, these stresses build up more rapidly and are experienced to a greater degree under any of several conditions, including when the hands are used to grip the handlebar more tightly, when on descents the hands are used to actuate the brakes with more frequency and force, and when the hands and arms are absorbing vibrations of the bicycle as it travels over rough terrain. Two measures that reduce fatigue are: 1) providing different gripping positions which will allow the rider to alternate positions and rest certain muscles and joints while using others, and 2) positioning the hands and arms to work in a natural position in which the hands have higher strength and endurance and the position can be held without unusual effort.
The handlebars that create an aerodynamic position often do not provide the desired hand positions to reduce fatigue. With handlebars that create an aerodynamic position, the primary hand position provides the best available combination of comfort and control. The secondary positions provide lower levels of these benefits. Consequently, the secondary positions are less useful, particularly on rugged or sloped terrain. In these conditions, the handlebar arrangement has little ability to address fatigue through changing hand positions.
The generally straight cross bar type handlebar used often in mountain biking has only one gripping position, which can be expanded to two basic positions with the forward bar extensions. The hand position on the extensions creates a forward body position and provides a lack of access to control levers. In the primary hand position option, the hand position on the straight handlebar orients the hands so that the portion of the palms near the knuckles is facing downward. The wrist is positioned so that the long dimension of the wrist is in a horizontal plane. The rider will find, however, that the wrist is less susceptible to fatigue if it is in a vertical plane or a plane in between vertical and horizontal. To accomplish the horizontal wrist position required by a straight handlebar, the rider either raises the elbows or twists the forearms. Either response increases fatigue. As noted above, conditions such as rough terrain where these handlebars are often used will further increase the use and fatigue of the body parts mentioned above. With only the single primary hand position, the cyclist can become fatigued, resulting in diminished control and thus reducing safety for himself and others.
Handlebars of various shapes have been designed in the prior art to reduce certain types of fatigue. Commonly, the type of fatigue addressed is back and neck fatigue incurred as a result of a forward leaning, aerodynamic position. Most of these designs have had some utility in addressing only a different type of fatigue problem, and they have often used cumbersome mechanical and design configurations to provide the cyclist with alternative handgrip positions. In addition, the added positions often only allow the rider to sit more upright and do not assist the rider's control, particularly when shifting weight forward and rearward or when riding over and around obstacles. The issue of control has been addressed to only a minimal degree with respect to positioning of controls such as brake levers. The hand and body positions created do not provide the needed comfort and control.
Examples of prior art handlebar designs include U.S. Pat. No. 1,068,158 to Noack, and U.S. Pat. No. 588,166 to McCoy. The McCoy design provides several handgrip positions but provides only a raised gripping position with inadequate control for rough terrrain. The Noack patent discloses a rotatable handlebar which can be adjusted to the cyclist's morphology and, ostensibly, to the terrain as well. The handlebar itself must be adjusted through a relatively complex and heavy mechanical apparatus rather than simply the handgrip position of the cyclist on the handlebar. No provision is made for control levers. U.S. Pat. No. 439,129 to Durkee discloses a handlebar that also moves through mechanical mechanism when the rider is riding. In this design, the handlebars raise and come together, not providing an additional position for control of the velocipede but moving out of the way in case of a fall.
Other prior art handlebar designs include German Pat. No. 3,143,714 to Schauff and French Pat. No. 2,535,669 to Lohazic. Both the Schauff and the Lohazic designs disclose handlebars having curved end tubes. Neither of the designs provide hand positions that support a forward weight shift and a rearward weight shift to assist a rider to maintain control while ascending or descending steeply sloped terrain. The Schauff design provides a single hand grip position with a natural wrist orientation. The Lohazic design only provides two alternate positions for the cyclist, one for each adjusted position of the curved end tubes. One places the body more upright and one places the body more bent over, the two positions maintaining a similar weight distribution. Only a single hand grip position is provided unless the end tubes are disengaged and interchanged to provide the second position. This adjustment cannot be made while riding the bicycle.
Still other prior art handlebar designs include French Pat. No. 325,192 to Roques, Canadian Pat. No. 451,284 to Bouvier and U.K. Pat. No. 665,529 to Jouby. These prior art designs share the problems and drawbacks which have been discussed above with respect to some of the other cited patents.
Thus, a need still exists for a simple and efficient design that provides a number of alternate handgrip positions which are more comfortable, less fatiguing, and provide greater control. A particular situation where alternative handgrip positions are needed is when a cyclist rides on a variety of terrains including steeply sloped terrains, i.e. riding uphill on inclined terrains, riding downhill on inclined terrains, and riding on flat terrains. Therefore, a need exists for a design which provides handgrip positions for which the cyclist can shift weight from forward to rearward.
In addition, a need exists for a design that provides alternative hand positions to allow the cyclist to relieve stresses by shifting positions. Primary hand positions that place the wrist in a plane that is roughly vertical or in between vertical and horizontal are needed. The design should also provide the alternative handgrip areas without having to dismantle, re-orient, or undergo other tedious steps with the handlebars. The primary handgrip areas should allow the hands to be positioned so the palms do not face downward, but inward (toward a median plane). Of particular importance is the provision of a design which provides these handgripping positions to the cyclist with adequate leverage and accessibility to gear shift control mechanisms and brake control mechanisms. This is especially true when the cyclist is riding downhill, when the cyclist finds it essential to have access to brake controls without a significant loss of ability to steer of the bicycle.
In addition, it is particularly desirable that the handlebar design be capable of manufacture without great increase in cost and be simple enough to adapt for use with conventional bicycles.